BENCHMARKS & DATASETS
Find the task behind the score.
409 evaluations and research datasets across 12 families, with their original publications and releases.
Explore scored benchmarks alongside datasets for training, verification and research planning. Each entry identifies what it provides and links to its evidence.
Explore benchmark leaderboards →Mathematics & Formal Theorem Proving
| Evaluation or dataset | Signal or resource | Purpose & sources |
|---|---|---|
| ErdősBench → | Judge grade · 0–4 | Research mathematics evaluated through scoped progress, theorem use, counterexamples, and proof audits. |
| SimoBench → | Proof credit · 0–7 | Synthetic olympiad mathematics with reference solutions and partial credit for the proof itself. |
| UnsolvedMath → | Research rubric · 0–5; formalization · 0/1 | Open mathematical problems test literature search, proof construction, proof criticism, and formalization. The published comparison reports separate research rubric ratings rather than a solved percentage. |
| AIME++ Sample | Evaluation dataset | 157 exact-answer mathematical problems across AIME, AIME Hard, graduate and researcher tiers, with a reference scorer and fixed answer contract. |
| Verified Research Reasoning Trajectories for RLVR | Post-training dataset | Three public research-math trajectory samples combine proof-verification units, negative attempts, preference pairs and review annotations. Partial and conditional research claims retain their stated status. |
| Verified Math Olympiad Reasoning Trajectories for RLVR | Post-training dataset | Ten public olympiad trajectory samples include golden solutions, verification units, generated attempts, preference pairs and adversarial checks for inspecting a post-training data format. |
| FrontierMath Tiers 1-3 (v2) → | Source-defined benchmark score | Expert-written math problems covering advanced undergrad through early career research. |
| FrontierMath Tier 4 → | Hardest-tier correctness | The hardest FrontierMath tier tests advanced mathematical problem solving in a particularly demanding slice of the suite. |
| FrontierMath: Open Problems → | Verified solution-record counts | Open research problems are tracked through computer-checkable constructions and documented mathematical advances. Public first-solver credits are kept distinct from controlled benchmark success rates. |
| FrontierMath: Erdős (Lean 4) → | Lean 4 kernel check · % | 68 unsolved Erdős problems where AI systems must produce formally verified solutions in Lean 4. |
| RiemannBench → | Mathematical reasoning score | A mathematical evaluation is included in recent frontier-model science and math comparisons. |
| ProofBench → | Source-defined benchmark score | A benchmark of graduate-level mathematics problems where models must write Lean 4 proofs that pass formal verification. |
| IMO-AnswerBench → | Answer accuracy | Olympiad-related mathematics is evaluated through answer-oriented scoring in frontier model reports. |
| AIME 2026 → | Contest answer accuracy | A new annual contest set tests mathematical reasoning through short integer answers. |
| AIME 2025 → | Answer accuracy | Contest mathematics with short integer answers provides a compact test of multi-step problem solving. |
| AIME 2024 → | Exact Match (000–999) | 30 problems from the 2024 AIME (standard benchmark in DeepSeek-R1, o1, Qwen2.5/3 whitepapers).
|
| OTIS Mock AIME 2024-2025 → | Source-defined benchmark score | 45 competition-style math problems from OTIS, harder than MATH Level 5 but easier than FrontierMath. |
| BeyondAIME → | Exact Match · % | Harder post-AIME olympiad benchmark designed to avoid saturation of AIME 2024/2025 (used in DAPO, VAPO, SAO/GLM-5.2). |
| HMMT 2026 · February → | Contest answer accuracy | The February Harvard–MIT Mathematics Tournament provides a dated contest-math evaluation. |
| HMMT 2025 (Feb & Nov) → | Exact Match · % | Standard 2025 competition math holdout used in OpenAI, DeepSeek, and Qwen evaluations.
|
| PutnamBench → | Formal proof pass · % | 640+ William Lowell Putnam Mathematical Competition problems (1962–2023) formalized in Lean 4, Isabelle, and Coq.
|
| Putnam-AXIOM → | Problem accuracy · original and functional variants | A mathematical-reasoning benchmark built from Putnam competition problems, with original questions and functional variations that test whether a model can adapt its solution when a problem changes. Problem accuracy is separate from teacher-forced token prediction.
|
| Omni-MATH → | Omni-Judge / Exact Match | 4,428 olympiad-level math problems across 33 sub-domains and 4 difficulty tiers.
|
| OlympiadBench (Math) → | Exact Match / Proof | Bilingual, multimodal olympiad-level mathematics benchmark spanning IMO, regional olympiads, and Gaokao hard problems.
|
| CNMO (Chinese National Math Olympiad) → | Exact Match / Rubric | Chinese National Mathematical Olympiad problems reported in DeepSeek-R1, Qwen, and Kimi whitepapers.
|
| miniF2F → | Verified theorem success | Formalized mathematical statements test whether a system can construct proofs accepted by a proof assistant. |
| ProofNet → | Lean formalization & proof | Undergraduate pure mathematics autoformalization and formal theorem proving benchmark in Lean. |
| FIMO (Formal IMO) → | Lean 4 proof pass · % | IMO Shortlist algebra and number theory problems formalized in Lean.
|
| LeanDojo Benchmark (Lean 4) → | Premise + Tactic Pass@k | 98,734 theorems extracted from Mathlib with novel-premise split testing formal theorem proving.
|
| MATH-500 → | Answer accuracy | A compact selection of competition mathematics problems supports repeatable reasoning checks. |
| GSM8K → | Answer accuracy | Grade-school mathematical word problems test multi-step arithmetic reasoning. |
| GSM-Plus / GSM-Symbolic → | Variance & Perturbation Acc | Perturbed and symbolic template versions of GSM8K testing robustness to Distractor clauses and numerical changes. |
| MGSM (Multilingual GSM) → | Exact Match across 10 langs | 250 GSM8K problems professionally translated into 10 typologically diverse languages. |
| PolyMath → | Multilingual Math Acc | Multilingual mathematical reasoning benchmark across 18 languages and 4 difficulty levels.
|
| CollegeMath → | Exact Match · % | 2,818 university-level math problems spanning calculus, linear algebra, differential equations, probability, and abstract algebra. |
| HARP · Human Annotated Reasoning Problems → | Exact Match · % | Human-annotated problems from US national math competitions, with 4,780 automatically checkable short-answer questions spanning six difficulty levels. The paper also studies multiple-choice prompting and inference-time sampling. |
| MathOdyssey → | Exact Match / GPT-4 Judge | 387 high-school to university and olympiad mathematics problems crafted by professors to avoid contamination. |
| FrontierMath-2025-02-28-Public → | Exact Match · /10 | 10-problem public inspection release of FrontierMath with full Inspect log traces. |
| MathVista → | Visual mathematics accuracy | Mathematical reasoning is tested through diagrams, charts, scientific figures and other visual contexts. |
| MathVision → | Visual mathematics accuracy | Mathematical problems with visual context require reasoning over both the statement and the supplied figures. |
Code Generation, Software Engineering & Cybersecurity
| Evaluation or dataset | Signal or resource | Purpose & sources |
|---|---|---|
| Terminal-Bench 4.0 → | Verified task success | Complex terminal work spans coding, science, infrastructure, and other technical tasks, with executable checks. |
| Terminal-Bench 2.1 → | Verified task success | A refreshed terminal task suite repairs environment and instruction issues from the earlier release. |
| Terminal-Bench 2.0 → | Verified terminal task success | An agent completes technical work in a terminal under executable task checks. |
| Terminal-Bench Hard → | Verified task success | A difficult terminal-work evaluation probes multi-step technical execution. |
| SWE-bench Verified → | Resolved issues | Human-reviewed repository issues test whether an agent can implement a repair in an existing Python codebase. |
| SWE-bench Pro → | Resolved issues | Long-horizon software-engineering tasks extend repository evaluation beyond small isolated edits. |
| SWE-Bench Pro V2 (Full & Hard) → | % Resolved | Updated 2026 long-horizon repository software engineering benchmark with Full and Hard splits. |
| SWE-bench Multilingual → | Resolved repository issues | Repository-level software repair broadens evaluation across programming languages. |
| SWE-bench Multimodal → | % Resolved | 517 visual software engineering issues (UI rendering, charting, front-end layout, diagram specs) across JS/TS/HTML/CSS repos.
|
| SWE-bench (Original Full & Lite) → | % Resolved | Full 2,294-issue benchmark and 300-issue SWE-bench Lite subset.
|
| SWE-bench Live → | % Resolved | Continuously updated contamination-free stream of newly closed GitHub issues created after model training cutoffs.
|
| SWE-Lancer → | $ Earned & % Resolved | 1,400+ real freelance Upwork software engineering tasks ($1M total payout value) spanning IC implementation and SWE Management. |
| Multi-SWE-bench → | % Resolved | 1,632 repository issues spanning 7 languages (Java, TypeScript, JavaScript, Go, Rust, C, C++).
|
| SWE Atlas — Refactoring → | Pass rate · % | Evaluates coding agents on multi-file architectural refactoring while preserving existing behavioral contracts. |
| SWE Atlas — Test Writing → | Coverage & mutation score | Evaluates coding agents on writing production-grade test suites that catch regressions and edge cases. |
| SWE Atlas — Codebase QnA → | Rubric accuracy · % | Evaluates deep architectural comprehension and multi-file dependency reasoning in large codebases. |
| DeepSWE v1.1 → | Verified task success | Original engineering problems test coding agents on substantial changes in existing repositories. |
| FrontierSWE v2 → | Mean task score across trials | Extended engineering and research challenges test how much useful work an agent can complete within a long fixed budget. |
| FrontierCode 1.1 → | Task success | Repository-level engineering is evaluated against the standard of work maintainers could accept. |
| SWE-Marathon → | Long-horizon task score | Extended software projects test whether an agent can keep making useful progress through long engineering sessions. |
| ProgramBench → | Behavioral reconstruction score | Agents reconstruct programs from observed behavior rather than receiving a conventional repository repair issue. |
| MirrorCode → | Spec test pass rate · % | Long-horizon clean-room program implementation benchmark administered by Epoch AI. |
| NL2Repo-Bench → | Repository creation score | A natural-language software request is used to assess whether an agent can produce a working repository. |
| Commit0 → | Pytest pass rate · % | Challenges agents to write core Python libraries (like simpy, minitorch, pydantic) from scratch starting from commit 0 and API docs.
|
| Vibe Code Bench → | Application-building score | Compare app-building outcomes across the original suite and the 1–100 collection, with each task set labeled separately. |
| Vibe Code Bench → | Application-building score | Compare app-building outcomes across the original suite and the 1–100 collection, with each task set labeled separately. |
| Code Migration v1.1 → | Test suite pass · % | Evaluates agents on translating/reimplementing complete working programs from one programming language to another. |
| AA-3D → | Preference Elo | A language-model agent turns a written brief into an interactive three.js scene inside an offline environment. |
| BenchCAD → | Geometric reconstruction overlap | Visual-to-code tasks assess whether a model can construct a CAD representation matching a target shape. |
| Design Bench → | Design artifact score | Language-model workflows produce graphic-design artifacts from direct or reference-based briefs. |
| CursorBench 4.0 → | Agentic coding success | An agentic-coding evaluation appears alongside terminal and repository benchmarks in Anthropic’s release. |
| Kimi Code Bench 2.0 → | Internal coding score | Kimi’s internal coding evaluation tests workflows selected by the model developer. |
| xdev-Bench-hard → | Controlled security score | Kimi reports an internal, difficult security-capability evaluation. |
| PostTrainBench → | Held-out post-training performance | An agent must improve small language models within a constrained training-compute budget. |
| MLE-bench → | Competition performance | Agents train and evaluate machine-learning systems on competition-style engineering tasks.
|
| PaperBench → | Replication rubric · % | Evaluates whether coding agents can replicate 20 Spotlight/Oral ICML machine learning papers from scratch (writing all code and running experiments).
|
| CORE-Bench → | Reproducibility acc · % | Computational reproducibility benchmark testing whether agents can reproduce scientific paper results from messy repositories. |
| KernelBench → | Correctness and speedup | GPU kernel-generation tasks evaluate whether a model can replace reference operations with correct, efficient implementations.
|
| LiveCodeBench → | Pass@1 | Date-bounded contest problems test coding and related code-repair or execution skills. |
| LiveCodeBench Pro → | Elo / Pass@1 | Hard division Codeforces/ICPC competitive programming extension of LiveCodeBench.
|
| OJBench → | Online-judge programming accuracy | Programming problems are solved against an online-judge-style evaluation, including a named Python setting in model reports. |
| IOI v1 & IOI v2 → | Contest score · % | Official International Olympiad in Informatics problems evaluated under full subtask grading and submission limits. |
| CodeElo → | Codeforces Elo rating | Evaluates LLMs directly under live Codeforces Div. 1/2/3 contest conditions with human-calibrated Elo ratings.
|
| USACO Benchmark → | Pass@1 (Bronze–Platinum) | 307 USA Computing Olympiad problems across Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum divisions. |
| CodeContests → | Pass@k | Competitive programming dataset from Codeforces, Description2Code, and CodeNet with high-coverage test cases.
|
| Aider coding benchmarks → | Source-defined benchmark score | Programming and refactoring tasks test edits to real code. Polyglot and refactoring results retain their own task sets and attempt budgets. |
| BigCodeBench & BigCodeBench-Hard → | Pass@1 · % | 1,140 practical software engineering tasks requiring complex function calls across 139 Python libraries (BigCodeBench-Hard = 148).
|
| HumanEval → | Pass@k | Function-completion problems evaluate whether generated Python programs satisfy a behavioral test suite.
|
| MBPP+ → | Pass@1 | Expanded tests strengthen a collection of short Python programming problems. |
| MultiPL-E & McEval → | Pass@1 across 18–40 langs | Massively multilingual code generation benchmarks translating HumanEval/MBPP and native problems across up to 40 programming languages.
|
| DS-1000 → | Pass@1 · % | 1,000 realistic data-science coding problems across NumPy, Pandas, SciPy, Scikit-Learn, Matplotlib, PyTorch, and TensorFlow.
|
| CruxEval (Input & Output) → | Pass@1 · % | 800 Python functions testing code execution reasoning: predicting output from input (CruxEval-O) and input from output (CruxEval-I).
|
| Spider 2.0 & BIRD-SQL → | Execution Accuracy · % | Enterprise text-to-SQL and agentic database querying benchmarks over Snowflake, BigQuery, Postgres, and multi-thousand-column schemas.
|
| RepoBench & CrossCodeEval → | Exact Match / Edit Sim | Multi-file repository-level code completion and cross-file dependency retrieval benchmarks. |
| VoiceCodeBench → | Exact structured match · % | Evaluates speech-to-text and audio models on transcribing exact code symbols, identifiers, and structured values in spoken engineering workflows. |
| CyberBench v1.1 → | Bug discovery + patch · % | Evaluates whether AI security agents can discover vulnerabilities in real codebases and write verified patches. |
| SRE-Bench → | Reverse-engineering accuracy | In the GPT-6 Astra report, this name refers to software reverse engineering rather than site-reliability incident handling. |
| ExploitBench → | Security capability score | A controlled security evaluation measures model capability on vulnerability-related software tasks. |
| SEC-Bench Pro → | Security engineering score | Security-oriented software evaluation appears in recent model capability reports. |
| CyberGym → | Controlled security task success | A controlled security benchmark appears in MiniMax’s recent model capability report. |
| CWE-Bench → | Controlled security task score | A controlled software-security evaluation contributes to recent frontier-model capability comparisons. |
| NYU CTF Bench → | Challenge success · pass@1 and pass@5 | Published agent submissions are evaluated on 200 cybersecurity competition challenges across six categories. Compare the full-set result with category breakdowns while preserving the agent and attempt budget.
|
Agents, Computer Use, Web Navigation & Tool Orchestration
| Evaluation or dataset | Signal or resource | Purpose & sources |
|---|---|---|
| GAIA → | Answer accuracy | Assistant questions require coordinating reasoning with tools and external information. |
| Agents’ Last Exam → | Professional task success | Professional software workflows test whether an agent can deliver the requested result in a real application environment. |
| BrowseComp → | Answer accuracy | Difficult information-seeking questions test a browsing agent’s ability to locate and combine evidence. |
| BrowseComp-ZH → | Exact Match · % | Chinese web-ecosystem counterpart to BrowseComp testing deep multi-hop search across Chinese sources.
|
| DeepSearchQA → | Answer-set F1 and exact accuracy | Web research tasks require collecting a complete set of answers rather than finding a single plausible fact. |
| WideSearch → | Item-level F1 | Broad information gathering asks an agent to identify many entities and their attributes across web sources. |
| Vals Web Search Index → | Task accuracy & cost | Independently evaluates native model search vs. Exa, Keenable, Parallel, and Tavily on private legal and financial research tasks. |
| SealQA · Seal-0 → | Search-augmented acc · % | Fact-seeking questions that remain difficult when search returns conflicting, noisy or unhelpful results. Seal-0 is the main challenge set; Seal-Hard and LongSeal probe additional reasoning and document-selection conditions. |
| OSWorld 2.1 → | Partial and binary task score | The OSWorld version reported in recent launches measures computer-use agents on extended application workflows. |
| OSWorld 2.0 → | Partial and binary task score | Long-horizon computer workflows extend evaluation across applications, files, and realistic task sequences. |
| OSWorld-Verified → | Verified task success | Language-model agents act in real computer environments across applications, using reproducible setup and evaluation scripts. |
| WindowsAgentArena → | Task success · % | 150+ real Windows OS desktop tasks across Edge, Office, File Explorer, VS Code, and Windows Settings.
|
| AndroidWorld → | Task success · % | 116 dynamic mobile GUI control tasks across 20 real Android apps with randomized task parameters.
|
| ScreenSpot & ScreenSpot-v2 → | GUI grounding acc · % | Evaluates visual UI element grounding (clicking exact bounding boxes from natural-language instructions across mobile, desktop, and web).
|
| ScreenSpot-Pro → | Visual grounding accuracy | A model must locate the interface element referred to by a user instruction on a professional screenshot. |
| WebArena → | Verified task success | Self-hosted websites support realistic multi-step web tasks with checks on whether the intended state was reached.
|
| VisualWebArena → | Functional success · % | 910 multimodal web tasks requiring visual inspection of images, memes, product photos, and layout state.
|
| WorkArena & WorkArena++ → | Task completion · % | Enterprise browser automation benchmark over live ServiceNow instances testing forms, dashboards, workflows, and knowledge bases.
|
| Mind2Web & Online-Mind2Web → | Step / Task success · % | Generalist web navigation benchmark across 137 real-world websites (Online-Mind2Web evaluates against live websites).
|
| AA-Briefcase v1.1 → | Rubric + preference Elo | Agents produce professional work from large collections of business files, with checks for correctness, analysis, and presentation. |
| GDPval-AA v2.1 → | Pairwise Elo | Agents complete occupational work and deliver documents, analyses, and other professional artifacts. |
| APEX-Agents · original → | Professional-services task success | Professional-service workflows require sustained work across files and tools. |
| AA-AnalystAgent → | Task score | Spreadsheet and document questions test the quantitative work expected of an analyst. |
| AutomationBench · Zapier → | Verified final-state success | Business workflows require an agent to coordinate real tools and leave the simulated business systems in the required final state. |
| EnterpriseOps-Gym-AA → | Final-state success | Agents navigate enterprise tools and change state across business workflows. |
| ITBench-AA → | Root-cause score | Agents investigate Kubernetes incidents from offline snapshots of telemetry and system structure. |
| Remote Labor Index → | Source-defined benchmark score | A benchmark measuring how well AI agents can complete real, economically valuable remote freelance projects end-to-end. |
| Vals RSI Index → | R&D score · % | Autonomous LLM AI research & development scored against published papers, human researchers, and frontier models. |
| Epoch Automation Reports → | Task score · % | Economic task-automation benchmark across white-collar occupational workflows. |
| TheAgentCompany → | % Tasks completed | Simulated software company environment where agents interact with RocketChat, OwnCloud, GitLab, Plane, and NPC coworkers. |
| AppWorld → | State unit-test pass · % | Interactive world of 9 day-to-day apps (Gmail, Spotify, Venmo, Amazon, Splitwise, Todoist) and 457 APIs governed by 100 simulated users.
|
| τ-Bench → | Policy-grounded dialogue success | Customer-service agents converse with simulated users while using tools and following domain policy. |
| τ²-Bench Telecom → | Joint task success | Both agent and simulated user can act on the shared state in technical-support tasks. |
| BFCL V4 → | Function-call accuracy | Berkeley’s function-calling evaluation covers tool invocation and broader agentic interactions. |
| MCP Atlas → | Tool-workflow task score | Multi-tool tasks examine how an agent discovers, selects, and coordinates capabilities exposed through MCP. |
| MCPMark → | Verified tool task success | Agents work through MCP-connected application and filesystem tasks with programmatic verification. |
| Toolathlon → | End-to-end tool task success | Long-horizon tasks require coordinating tools and completing a practical workflow. |
| Claw Eval → | Pass^3 and pass@3 | Tool-based agent evaluations report both repeatability and success across multiple attempts. |
| SkillsBench → | Task completion · % | Evaluates how effectively coding/terminal agents read and apply modular SKILL.md / tool-skill packages. |
| HANDBOOK.md → | Policy-grounded workflow score | Agents must use operational documentation while working through a tool-based task. |
| DECK-Arena → | Presentation quality score | Presentation-generation tasks assess language-model agents producing slides from practical requests. |
| JobBench → | Professional tool-use score | Meta’s reported professional-tool-use evaluation measures a slice of work performed through tools. |
| FocusBench → | Sustained-focus score | Meta uses this evaluation to study whether an agent continues working toward a difficult objective. |
| Personal Superintelligence Index → | Internal composite | Meta’s internal composite summarizes personal and knowledge-work capability. |
| HiL-Bench (Human-in-Loop Benchmark) → | Clarification score · % | Evaluates whether agents recognize missing/ambiguous requirements and ask targeted clarifying questions before acting. |
| CUA-bench → | Game progression · % | Evaluates computer-use agents playing 6 commercial video games using only raw screen pixels, keyboard, and mouse (half held out). |
| Time Horizon Index: KSP → | Mission score · % | Evaluates whether an AI agent can design rockets, launch, orbit, and run a space program in *Kerbal Space Program*. |
| Earthborne Rangers (EBR-bench) → | Source-defined benchmark score | A test of AI systems' learning capabilities, measuring whether their scores improve across repeated playthroughs of the relatively obscure game Earthborne Rangers. |
| Poker Agent Benchmark → | Bankroll / bb/100 | Multi-table No-Limit Texas Hold'em agent evaluation measuring net profit against competing LLM agents. |
| BALROG → | Progression · % | Benchmark for Agentic LLM and VLM Reasoning On Games (NetHack, MiniHack, BabyAI, Crafter, TextWorld, Baba Is You). |
| METR task performance & time horizons → | Source-defined benchmark score | Track task accuracy alongside the estimated duration of work a model can complete at a specified success rate. Minutes and task success remain separate measures. |
| Vals Router Index → | Score vs. Cost Pareto | Evaluates model routers against single models across identical agentic finance, coding, legal, and tax tasks. |
| Vals Inference Provider Index → | Accuracy, $/task, tok/s | Audits open-weight model serving quality across Together AI, Fireworks, Baseten, and first-party APIs. |
| AgentBench & ToolBench → | Success rate · % | Foundational multi-environment agent benchmark (OS, DB, KG, Web, AlfWorld) and 16,000-API tool-use benchmark.
|
| AssistantBench → | Accuracy · % | 214 realistic time-consuming web tasks (real estate, travel, shopping, local services) requiring synthesis across multiple pages. |
| GAIA-2 → | Task pass rate · % | Next-generation dynamic, stateful multi-turn environment extension of GAIA.
|
| GDPx v1.0 → | Domain-balanced task credit · % | Difficult agentic work across research, engineering and professional domains, grounded in specialist-built environments. |
Scientific Discovery, Biology, Chemistry, Physics & Robotics
| Evaluation or dataset | Signal or resource | Purpose & sources |
|---|---|---|
| STEMBench → | Research progress · 0–4 | Scientific research evaluated across biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, Earth science, and engineering. |
| UnsolvedPhysics | Open-problem corpus | The v2.1 release lists 20,000 open and partially solved physics problems, with literature triage, difficulty levels and dependencies between research questions. |
| UnsolvedChemistry | Open-problem corpus | The source release lists 25,000 chemistry research questions with current-status labels, linked literature and difficulty tiers for retrieval and research planning. |
| UnsolvedBiology | Open-problem corpus | Version 1.5 lists 18,000 open or partially solved biology questions across 16 categories, with archived audit records and linked scientific sources. |
| UnsolvedAstronomy | Open-problem corpus | Version 1.1 lists 35,000 open and partially solved questions spanning astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, planetary science and heliophysics. |
| UnsolvedEarth | Open-problem corpus | Version 1.3 lists 20,000 open and partially solved Earth and environmental science questions, including a curated horizon-scan subset and archived review records. |
| UnsolvedEngineering | Open-problem corpus | Version 2.0 lists 20,000 open or partially resolved engineering questions across 16 domains, including a 2,000-problem curated subset. |
| Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1 → | Verified task success | Research workflows are completed in a terminal and checked with task-specific tests. |
| Vals Science Index → | Equal-weighted average · % | Composite index averaging MysteryMechanism, BioMysteryBench, and Terminal-Bench-Science. |
| MysteryMechanism → | Mechanism discovery · % | Evaluates whether agents can rediscover sealed mathematical and physical governing laws through bounded active experiments. |
| BioMysteryBench → | Scientific investigation score | Biological investigations test agentic reasoning through a scientific problem and its supporting evidence. |
| CritPt v2 → | Research-task score | Research-level physics challenges are attempted with code execution in an offline Linux sandbox. |
| CritPt → | Research-task score | The original physics benchmark tests difficult research reasoning across composite challenges. |
| SciCode → | Executable correctness | Scientist-authored coding problems require translating domain knowledge into numerical implementations. |
| GPQA Diamond → | Multiple-choice accuracy | A demanding subset of expert-written science questions tests detailed reasoning in specialist domains. |
| GPQA Main → | Multiple-choice accuracy | The broader GPQA science evaluation complements the more commonly reported Diamond subset.
|
| SuperGPQA → | Accuracy · % | 26,529 graduate-level questions across 285 disciplines (expanding beyond natural sciences into engineering, medicine, agronomy, and humanities).
|
| LABBench 2 → | Scientific workflow score | Scientific tasks evaluate reasoning and computational work with domain-relevant tools. |
| LAB-Bench (v1) → | Accuracy & Precision · % | 2,400+ questions evaluating literature retrieval (LitQA2), protocol troubleshooting (ProtocolQA), figure/table interpretation (FigQA/TableQA), DNA cloning (CloningScenarios), and sequence manipulation (SeqQA).
|
| BixBench → | Agent trajectory pass · % | Real-world bioinformatics agent benchmark requiring R/Python analysis over raw sequencing and multi-omics datasets.
|
| LifeSciBench → | Life-science task score | Life-science questions probe specialist reasoning and the use of relevant scientific knowledge. |
| GeneBench Pro → | Genetics task score | Specialist genetics evaluation appears in recent frontier-model science reports. |
| MedChemBench → | Medicinal-chemistry task score | OpenAI’s internal medicinal-chemistry evaluation measures a specialist slice of scientific reasoning. |
| DrugDiscoveryBench → | Task score · % | 82 expert-curated computational drug discovery tasks executed by coding agents. |
| BioLP-Bench → | Error localization · % | Wet-lab biological protocol mistake identification benchmark. |
| ChemBench → | Accuracy · % | 2,700+ curated chemistry questions spanning organic, inorganic, physical, analytical, computational, and chemical safety.
|
| UGPhysics → | Symbolic / Numerical Acc · % | 5,520 undergraduate physics problems (in English and Chinese) across 13 physics courses with custom symbolic equivalence verification.
|
| OlympiadBench · physics → | Exact Match · % | Olympiad-level physics problems test scientific reasoning with bilingual text and visual inputs. The published suite covers mathematics and physics; chemistry is not a reported component.
|
| ScienceAgentBench → | Valid execution & rubric · % | 102 data-driven scientific discovery coding tasks extracted from peer-reviewed papers across bioinformatics, computational chemistry, GIS, and psychology.
|
| DiscoveryWorld → | Discovery task completion | Virtual interactive environment where agents formulate hypotheses, design controlled experiments, gather data, and discover scientific laws.
|
| Robo-bench → | Real-time physics score · % | 24 real-time MuJoCo physics tasks (13 robot arm, 11 humanoid) controlled purely from camera feeds and raw joint motor commands within 3 minutes. |
| Furniture Assembly Benchmark → | Assembly completion · % | Spatial 3D geometric reasoning and multi-part assembly benchmark administered by Epoch AI. |
| MatBench & Matbench Discovery → | MAE / F1 stability | Materials-discovery models are compared on structure and energy predictions using Matbench and Matbench Discovery protocols. These are scientific prediction models, rather than a general language-model question-answering test. |
| ProteinGym → | Spearman $\rho$ | 217+ deep mutational scanning assays (2.7M+ variants) evaluating protein fitness and design models. |
| Biomni-Eval → | Task pass rate · % | Generalist biomedical agent evaluation suite across genetics, pharmacology, pathology, and clinical microbiology. |
| SpatialBench / VSI-Bench → | Accuracy · % | Visual-Spatial Intelligence benchmark measuring 3D room layout, object distance, relative direction, and camera motion from video. |
| PhysBench → | Accuracy · % | Multimodal physical world understanding benchmark across mechanics, optics, thermodynamics, and material properties. |
| SciBench → | Exact Match · % | College-level textbook problems in mathematics, chemistry, and physics requiring open-ended numerical derivations.
|
General Reasoning, Logic, Planning & Abstract Puzzles
| Evaluation or dataset | Signal or resource | Purpose & sources |
|---|---|---|
| Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v5.0 → | Weighted composite · index points | Nine evaluations connect knowledge work, coding, science and general capability in one versioned score. |
| Epoch Capabilities Index (ECI) → | Composite capability · ECI | A common capability scale fitted across many benchmarks, with uncertainty estimates and a historical view of model progress. |
| Humanity’s Last Exam → | Answer accuracy | Expert-authored questions stretch academic reasoning and knowledge across many disciplines. |
| HLE-Diamond → | Answer accuracy | A named challenging subset of Humanity’s Last Exam appears in recent model launches. |
| HLE-Rolling → | Accuracy · % | Continuously refreshed dynamic split of Humanity's Last Exam to prevent saturation and leakage. |
| ARC-AGI-1 → | Grid-task success | Few-shot grid transformations test the discovery and application of unfamiliar rules. |
| ARC-AGI-2 → | Task success | Novel grid-transformation problems test abstraction and adaptation from a small number of examples. |
| ARC-AGI-3 → | Interactive adaptation score | Interactive environments assess how an agent explores, learns rules, and adapts to unfamiliar tasks. |
| Humanity's Sixth Sense (HSS) → | Accuracy · % | Intuitive visual, spatial, and physical common-sense reasoning across complex image and video scenarios. |
| ZeroBench → | Visual task accuracy | Challenging visual questions probe failures that remain after ordinary image understanding becomes strong. |
| BabyVision → | Visual reasoning accuracy | Visual problem solving tests whether a model can reason over image structure rather than rely only on familiar textual knowledge. |
| Chartography → | Professional chart accuracy | Specialist charts test visual reasoning grounded in professional practice. |
| CharXiv → | Chart reasoning accuracy | Scientific charts require models to read visual information and reason over what the figure actually shows. |
| MMMU → | Multidiscipline multimodal accuracy | College-level questions combine language, visual material and subject knowledge across disciplines. |
| MMMU-Pro → | Multimodal accuracy | Academic questions require visual understanding as well as language reasoning, with measures against text-only shortcuts. |
| BIG-Bench Hard → | Task accuracy | A challenging subset of BIG-bench tests varied reasoning skills beyond straightforward knowledge recall. |
| BIG-Bench Extra Hard (BBEH) → | Exact Match · % | Replacement for saturated BBH: 23 drastically harder tasks where frontier non-thinking models score <15% and o1/R1 reasoners are stress-tested.
|
| LiveBench → | Average score · % | Contamination-free monthly-updated benchmark with verifiable ground-truth scoring across Math, Coding, Reasoning, Language, Data Analysis, and IF. |
| ZebraLogic → | Puzzle & Cell Accuracy · % | 1,000 constraint-satisfaction logic grid puzzles (Einstein puzzles) with controllable search-space complexity from $2\times 2$ to $6\times 6$.
|
| KOR-Bench → | Accuracy · % | Knowledge-Orthogonal Reasoning benchmark testing rule application over newly invented symbolic, cipher, puzzle, and counterfactual rules.
|
| EnigmaEval → | Solve rate · % | Complex multi-step lateral thinking, cryptographic, and puzzle-hunt benchmark (MIT Mystery Hunt style). |
| PlanBench → | Plan validity · % | Evaluates classical PDDL action planning, plan verification, replanning, and obfuscated symbol planning (Mystery Blocksworld). |
| MuSR (Multistep Soft Reasoning) → | Accuracy · % | Evaluates multi-step deductive reasoning embedded in long natural-language narratives (murder mysteries, object placement, team allocation). |
| DROP (Discrete Reasoning Over Paragraphs) → | F1 / Exact Match | Reading comprehension requiring discrete operations (addition, counting, sorting) over sports and history passages.
|
| ARC-Challenge (AI2 Reasoning Challenge) → | Accuracy · % | 1,172 grade-school science multiple-choice questions (distinct from Chollet's ARC-AGI).
|
| AGIEval → | Accuracy · % | Human-centric standardized exams (SAT, LSAT, Gaokao, GRE, GMAT, Civil Service, Lawyer Qualification).
|
| LogiQA 2.0 & ReClor → | Accuracy · % | Logical reading comprehension benchmarks sourced from Civil Service and GMAT/LSAT critical reasoning exams. |
| HellaSwag, WinoGrande, PIQA, SIQA, CommonsenseQA | Evaluation family | The four imported columns are CommonsenseQA, PIQA, Social IQa and WinoGrande; none is HellaSwag. Route each column to its actual benchmark, creating the two missing task pages. CommonsenseQA → Social IQa → PIQA → WinoGrande →
|
| MixEval & MixEval-Hard → | Score · % | Dynamic benchmark bridging open-ended user queries and ground-truth multiple-choice/short-answer benchmarks (0.96 correlation with Chatbot Arena).
|
| GraphWalks → | Node-set F1 | A long input describes a graph, and the model must retrieve related nodes or follow graph structure to the requested depth. |
| BoxBench → | Enterprise retrieval score | Enterprise information tasks test retrieval and reasoning over business content in a model-launch evaluation. |
| V* → | Visual search accuracy | Detailed visual questions test the ability to locate and interpret relevant evidence inside an image. |
| LVBench → | Long-video understanding accuracy | A language model with visual input must understand and reason over long video material. |
| Video-MME → | Video question-answering accuracy | Video understanding is evaluated across short, medium and long clips through human-annotated questions. |
Knowledge, Factuality, Hallucination & Multilingual Understanding
| Evaluation or dataset | Signal or resource | Purpose & sources |
|---|---|---|
| AA-Omniscience v1.1 → | Error-penalized index | Factual reliability across 3,000 questions, with credit for correct answers, penalties for errors and neutral abstentions. |
| SimpleQA → | Factual accuracy | Short factual questions probe whether a model supplies the right answer and when it declines to answer.
|
| SimpleQA Verified → | Factual Accuracy & F1 | Audited subset of SimpleQA removing ambiguous dates, contested facts, and noisy reference answers. |
| Chinese SimpleQA → | Accuracy & F-score | 3,000+ fact-seeking questions covering Chinese history, science, culture, law, and contemporary society.
|
| FACTS Grounding → | Groundedness & Quality · % | 1,719 examples evaluating whether long-form LLM responses remain strictly grounded in provided source documents without extrinsic hallucination.
|
| FActScore → | % Atomic facts supported | Decomposes long-form biographies/articles into atomic factual claims and verifies each claim against Wikipedia/retrieval sources.
|
| HalluLens → | Intrinsic & Extrinsic Hallucination % | Taxonomy-driven benchmark separating extrinsic factual hallucination (entities, citations, nonexistent concepts) from intrinsic context contradiction.
|
| Kimi Hallucination Benchmark → | Claim-level hallucination rate | Challenging practical-work prompts measure unsupported factual claims in Kimi’s internal evaluation. |
| TruthfulQA → | Truthful answer rate | Questions target common misconceptions to test whether a model repeats familiar falsehoods. |
| MMLU → | Multiple-choice accuracy | A broad academic test measures knowledge and reasoning across many subject areas. |
| MMLU-Pro → | Multiple-choice accuracy | A more demanding successor to MMLU emphasizes reasoning across a broad academic subject mix. |
| MMLU-Redux (2.0) → | Accuracy · % | 5,700 manually re-annotated MMLU questions fixing the ~6.5% ground-truth label errors present in original MMLU.
|
| Global-MMLU-Lite → | Per-language accuracy | A multilingual knowledge evaluation adds language and cultural coverage to academic testing. |
| MMMLU (OpenAI Multilingual MMLU) → | Accuracy across 14 langs | Professional human translation of the entire MMLU test set into 14 languages (Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, French, German, Hindi, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish, Swahili, Yoruba).
|
| INCLUDE → | Accuracy across 44 langs | 197,243 regional academic, professional, and licensing exam questions collected natively in 44 languages (not translated from English).
|
| CMMLU → | Chinese academic accuracy | Chinese-language academic and professional questions broaden knowledge evaluation beyond English.
|
| C-Eval → | Accuracy ( & Hard split) · % | 13,948 Chinese exam questions across 52 disciplines and 4 educational levels (Middle School, High School, College, Professional).
|
| KMMLU, JMMLU, ArabicMMLU, IndoMMLU → | Accuracy · % | Native Korean (35k questions), Japanese, Arabic (40 tasks), and Indonesian multi-discipline knowledge benchmarks.
|
| Belebele → | Accuracy across 122 langs | Parallel multiple-choice reading comprehension benchmark spanning 122 language variants linked to FLORES-200.
|
| FLORES-200 → | BLEU / ChrF++ / MetricX | Multilingual translation is evaluated across languages and translation directions. Read automatic metric scores alongside the exact language coverage and text or speech input route.
|
| TriviaQA → | Source-defined benchmark score | An open-domain question answering benchmark with challenging trivia questions paired with evidence documents. |
| PopQA → | Accuracy by entity popularity | 14k entity-centric factual questions stratified by monthly Wikipedia pageviews to measure long-tail knowledge retention. |
| FreshQA → | Relaxed & Strict Acc · % | Dynamically updated QA benchmark testing fast-changing world facts and false-premise debunking.
|
| Bamboogle & HotpotQA / MuSiQue → | Exact Match / F1 | Multi-hop compositional factual question answering benchmarks. |
| WorldBench & CulturalBench → | Parity & Accuracy | Evaluates geographical socioeconomic statistics recall across every country (WorldBench) and cross-cultural norms (CulturalBench).
|
| WikiContradict → | Faithfulness vs. Prior | Questions paired with conflicting Wikipedia passages test whether a model presents the disagreement accurately. Human review and an automated judge distinguish complete answers, partial answers, and errors.
|
| BhasaBench / IndicGenBench → | Accuracy / ChrF | Comprehensive South Asian and Indic language knowledge, translation, and QA benchmarks. |
| SAGE (Student Assessment with Generative Evaluation) → | Rubric score · % | Evaluates models on educational assessment, subject mastery, and student response grading across academic curricula. |
| TutorBench → | Pedagogical rubric · % | Evaluates multi-turn pedagogical scaffolding, hint generation, and misconception diagnosis in STEM tutoring. |
| Public Benefits Bench v1.1 → | Eligibility & benefit acc · % | Evaluates whether AI models can accurately determine household SNAP eligibility and benefit amounts across complex state/federal rules. |
| HaluEval 2.0 → | Hallucination detection F1 | Large-scale benchmark for detecting and quantifying hallucinations across QA, dialogue, and summarization.
|
| WildHallucinations → | FactScore on wild entities | Evaluates open-ended factual generation on long-tail entities mined from real user WildChat logs.
|
Finance, Accounting, Tax, Legal & Enterprise Economics
| Evaluation or dataset | Signal or resource | Purpose & sources |
|---|---|---|
| Vals Index → | Professional capability composite | A composite view summarizes model performance across professional-domain evaluations. |
| Vals Finance Index → | GDP-weighted finance score · % | Composite of Finance Agent v2.1, Excel Modeling Benchmark v1.1, and Tax Agent Bench weighted by finance sub-sector GDP. |
| Vals Finance Agent v2.1 → | Rubric accuracy · % | Updated Oct 2026 version of Finance Agent with new judge jury and revised institutional analyst questions (rltasks.com only lists vals-finance-agent-v2). |
| Vals Finance Agent v2 → | Financial research task score | Agentic financial research evaluates whether a system can use tools and evidence to complete analyst work. |
| Excel Modeling Benchmark (EMB & EMB v1.1) → | Spreadsheet cell & model acc · % | Evaluates agents on building and editing 3-statement financial models, DCF valuations, LBOs, and debt schedules in Excel. |
| Tax Agent Bench → | All-pass accuracy · % | Evaluates agents on complex US corporate and international tax research, IRC code interpretation, and numerical schedules. |
| ClaimBench → | 3-way classification acc & $/1k | 1,960 deterministic 10-K filing claims testing whether an excerpt supports, contradicts, or does not address a financial claim. |
| OfficeQA Pro → | Grounded financial-answer accuracy | Find evidence and reason across workplace document collections. Version 1 and version 2 remain separate evaluations within this collection.
|
| τ³-Banking → | Workflow success | Banking-support conversations combine retrieval from unstructured knowledge with state-changing tool calls. |
| BankerToolBench → | Financial workflow score | Financial work tests sustained planning, consistency across documents, compliance constraints, and linked tool actions. |
| PRBench — Finance (Professional Reasoning) → | Expert rubric · % | Scale SEAL's private institutional finance, investment banking, and portfolio analysis benchmark. |
| FinanceBench → | Evidence-grounded financial QA | Financial questions require answers grounded in company filings and supporting evidence. |
| FinQA → | Program and execution accuracy | Questions over financial reports require retrieving the relevant figures and composing a numerical calculation.
|
| TAT-QA → | Exact match and numerical F1 | Financial questions combine evidence from tables and accompanying prose, often requiring arithmetic or multiple answer spans.
|
| DocFinQA & ConvFinQA → | Accuracy · % | Long-context full-filing (100+ page) and multi-turn conversational extensions of FinQA. |
| BizBench → | Program synthesis acc · % | Quantitative finance and accounting reasoning benchmark using program synthesis over SEC tables. |
| CorpFin v2 → | Accuracy · % | Private benchmark evaluating deep comprehension of long-context corporate credit agreements and debt covenants. |
| MortgageTax & TaxEval v2 → | Accuracy · % | Visual tax-certificate extraction (MortgageTax) and tax regulation QA (TaxEval v2). |
| Vals Legal Index → | Revenue-weighted legal score · % | Composite of Legal Research Bench, HLAB-Vals-1.1, and Tax Agent Bench weighted by US law-office practice-area revenue. |
| Harvey Legal Agent Benchmark → | Expert-rubric all-pass rate | A client matter provides documents and a legal-work request; the agent must deliver a reviewable artifact satisfying expert-written requirements. |
| Harvey LAB-AA v1.1 → | Hallucination-gated all-pass | Legal work is assessed against task criteria and the supplied source documents, with a gate for material hallucinations. |
| HLAB-Vals-1.1 → | Task pass rate and criteria pass rate | Vals evaluates agentic legal work using Harvey’s remediated private holdout and an updated harness. |
| Legal Research Bench → | Citation & legal accuracy · % | Evaluates legal agents on multi-jurisdictional US case-law and statutory research (hardest component of Vals Legal Index). |
| PRBench — Legal (Professional Reasoning) → | Expert attorney rubric · % | Scale SEAL's private transactional and litigation legal reasoning benchmark. |
| LegalBench → | Macro-average · % | 162 legal reasoning tasks co-designed by 40+ legal scholars across issue-spotting, rule-recall, rule-application, and interpretation. |
| CaseLaw v2 → | Accuracy · % | Private question-answering benchmark over Canadian court decisions. |
| CUAD (Contract Understanding Atticus Dataset) → | AUPR / F1 | 510 commercial legal contracts with 13,000+ expert annotations across 41 critical legal clause categories. |
| ContractNLI → | Entailment F1 & Span Acc | Document-level natural language inference over Non-Disclosure Agreements (testing whether clauses entail, contradict, or omit hypotheses). |
| LawBench → | Accuracy / F1 | 20-task Chinese civil and criminal legal system benchmark across statutory memorization, understanding, and judicial application.
|
| EconBench → | Strategic & economic acc · % | Published prototype observations examine economic choices under fixed prompts. Risk consistency is measured separately from patience, generosity, trust, and other stated preferences.
|
Healthcare, Clinical Medicine & Mental Health
| Evaluation or dataset | Signal or resource | Purpose & sources |
|---|---|---|
| HealthBench → | Rubric score | Physician-authored rubrics evaluate health conversations. Original HealthBench and the Professional evaluation use distinct measures and settings.
|
| UnsolvedMedical-Bench → | Research-evaluation scores · 0–100 | Five hundred medical research questions test study-design selection, evidence-gap identification, PICO formulation, and hypothesis coverage. The release reports heuristic and retrieval baselines with an explicit weighted composite. |
| MLCR-AA → | Pass rate | Long and fragmented medical records require multi-document reasoning in a claims-review setting. |
| MedCode → | Billing code accuracy · % | Evaluates whether models can accurately assign ICD-10, CPT, and HCPCS medical billing codes from clinical encounters. |
| MedScribe → | Clinical note rubric · % | Evaluates ambient clinical documentation, SOAP note generation, and EHR administrative support for physicians. |
| SAFE-Teen → | Clinician safety pass/fail · % | 106 clinician-written multi-turn scenarios (32,555 conversations) testing chatbot safeguarding, clinical boundary adherence, and attachment risks with teens aged 13–17. |
| DistressBench → | Crisis support quality · % | Evaluates the clinical safety, empathy, and de-escalation quality of crisis support delivered by LLMs. |
| MedQA (USMLE) → | Accuracy · % | United States Medical Licensing Examination (Steps 1, 2CK, 3) clinical vignette multiple-choice benchmark. |
| MedMCQA → | Accuracy · % | 194,000+ Indian medical entrance exam questions across 21 clinical and preclinical medical subjects. |
| PubMedQA → | Accuracy (Yes/No/Maybe) | Biomedical research QA over PubMed abstracts requiring statistical and experimental interpretation. |
| MultiMedQA & HealthSearchQA → | Clinician panel & Acc | Composite clinical benchmark combining MedQA, MedMCQA, PubMedQA, MMLU clinical topics, LiveQA, MedicationQA, and consumer queries.
|
| ClinicBench → | Top-1 / Top-5 Differential Acc | Clinical language models face seventeen datasets spanning diagnosis, recommendations, summarization, patient education, and information extraction. Published results keep each task and metric separate.
|
| CRAFT-MD → | History-taking & Dx accuracy | Simulated patient conversations test whether a model gathers a useful history and reaches the correct diagnosis. Compare conversational results with vignette questions and keep free-response answers separate from multiple choice.
|
| MedXpertQA (Text & MM) → | Accuracy · % | 4,460 specialist-board-level medical questions across 17 specialties and 11 body systems (including radiology/pathology images).
|
| MedAgentBench → | EHR FHIR task pass · % | 300 realistic clinical EHR tasks operating over a live FHIR-compliant electronic health record server with 100 patient profiles.
|
| VQA-RAD, SLAKE & OmniMedVQA → | Accuracy · % | Medical imaging visual question answering across X-ray, CT, MRI, ultrasound, histopathology, and fundus photography.
|
Long-Context Understanding, Retrieval & Episodic Memory
| Evaluation or dataset | Signal or resource | Purpose & sources |
|---|---|---|
| AA-LCR v1.1 → | Answer score | Long-document questions test extraction, synthesis, and reasoning across substantial inputs. |
| GDP.pdf → | All-pass rate | Professional questions require reasoning over long PDF documents and meeting task-specific requirements. |
| MRCR v2 → | Retrieval and reference resolution | Long-context tasks require tracking multiple references and retrieving the requested information from a large input. |
| RULER → | Length-conditioned accuracy | Synthetic long-context tasks probe effective context use beyond a single simple retrieval needle.
|
| LongBench v2 → | Question accuracy | Long-context understanding and reasoning are evaluated through demanding questions over substantial inputs. |
| InfiniteBench → | Task-specific long-context score | Very long inputs test retrieval and understanding beyond ordinary short-context evaluations.
|
| LongMemEval → | Long-term memory accuracy | Conversation-based tasks test an assistant’s ability to retain, update, and use information across an extended history. |
| MemoryBench → | Context-memory score | Meta reports a benchmark for retaining and retrieving useful context in model-driven workflows. |
| DocVQA → | Document answer similarity | Questions about document images require finding and interpreting text, layout and visual evidence.
|
| HELMET (How to Evaluate Long-Context Models Effectively and Thoroughly) → | Composite across 7 categories | Comprehensive long-context suite spanning RAG, citation generation, re-ranking, many-shot ICL, long-doc QA, summarization, and synthetic recall up to 128k+.
|
| Needle In A Haystack (NIAH) & MM-NIAH → | Retrieval heatmap · % | Classic pressure test inserting target facts ("needles") at varying document depths (0–100%) and context lengths (4k–2M tokens).
|
| BABILong → | Accuracy up to 10M tokens | Embeds multi-step bAbI deductive reasoning chains inside massive PG19 book haystacks from 4k to 10M tokens.
|
| Michelangelo (Latent Structure Queries) → | Accuracy up to 1M+ tokens | Evaluates long-context synthesis beyond surface retrieval via CodeRepoQA, BugLocalization, and IDK abstention.
|
| LOFT (Long-Context Frontiers in Retrieval & Reasoning) → | Recall@k / EM at 128k–1M | Tests whether 1M-token context windows can replace external RAG/SQL/VectorDB pipelines by placing entire corpora directly in-context.
|
| NoCha (Novel Challenge) → | Pairwise accuracy · % | True/False claim verification over recently published full-length English novels (60k–300k tokens) requiring global plot comprehension. |
| DetectiveQA / NarrativeQA → | Accuracy / ROUGE | Long-narrative whodunit deduction and book/movie script reading comprehension.
|
| RepoQA & LongCodeArena → | Needle function retrieval & pass | Evaluates semantic function retrieval (RepoQA) and project-wide coding tasks (LongCodeArena) across whole code repositories.
|
| LoCoMo (Long-Term Conversational Memory) → | QA & Event summarization F1 | Very long-term multi-modal dialogue benchmark spanning 300+ turns and 35 sessions per persona pair. |
| L-Eval & LongBench (v1) → | Length-controlled Judge & F1 | First-generation standardized bilingual long-context evaluation suites (4k–64k tokens).
|
| SCROLLS & ZeroSCROLLS → | Aggregate score | Standardized CompaRison Over Long Language Sequences across GovReport, SummScreenFD, QMSum, Qasper, NarrativeQA, and QuALITY.
|
| LongProc (Long Procedural Generation) → | Long-output accuracy · % | Stress-tests long-context output generation (generating 8k–64k token structured outputs, HTML, travel plans, and trace logs) rather than only long input reading.
|
| HelloBench / LongWriter-6k → | Quality & Length compliance | Evaluates whether LLMs can sustain coherent, high-quality generation over 2,000 to 20,000+ output words.
|
Instruction Following, Preference Arenas, Reward Models & Personality
| Evaluation or dataset | Signal or resource | Purpose & sources |
|---|---|---|
| Chatbot Arena → | Human-preference rating | Blind pairwise human choices compare model responses in open-ended interactions.
|
| SEAL Showdown → | Demographically segmented Elo | Large-scale blind pairwise preference arena segmented by real-world user profession, education level, and language. |
| Arena-Hard → | Judge-based response quality | Challenging assistant prompts support automated, preference-oriented evaluation of response quality.
|
| WildBench → | Judge-based quality | Challenging user tasks support evaluation of practical assistant responses using task-aware judgments.
|
| AlpacaEval 2.0 (Length-Controlled) → | LC Win Rate · % | 805 instruction-following prompts evaluated via GLM regression that debiasses judge preference for verbose outputs (0.98 Spearman correlation with Chatbot Arena).
|
| MT-Bench & MT-Bench-101 → | 1–10 Judge score | Foundational 80-prompt two-turn conversational instruction-following benchmark across 8 categories (and 1,388-dialog 10-turn extension).
|
| IFEval → | Instruction satisfaction | Programmatically checkable instructions test whether model outputs satisfy explicit constraints. |
| IFBench → | Constraint satisfaction | Verifiable output constraints probe whether instruction following transfers beyond familiar formats. |
| MultiChallenge (Large & Small LM) → | Pass rate · % | Multi-turn conversational benchmark testing instruction retention, inference memory, versioned self-revision, and sycophancy resistance. |
| AudioMultiChallenge (Audio & Text Output) → | Pass rate · % | Spoken multi-turn dialogue counterpart to MultiChallenge testing native voice-to-voice and voice-to-text instruction following. |
| ComplexBench → | Constraint composition score · % | Evaluates hierarchical compositions of multiple constraints (AND, OR, Selection/If-Else, and Nested chains).
|
| FollowBench → | Hard/Soft Satisfaction Rate | Multi-level fine-grained constraint-following benchmark adding 1 to 5 incremental constraints per seed instruction.
|
| InFoBench → | Decomposed Requirements Ratio (DRR) | Decomposes complex instructions into 2,250 atomic Yes/No criteria across 500 prompts.
|
| CFBench (Chinese Complex Following) → | CSR / ISR / PSR | 1,000 real-world Chinese instructions covering 200+ scenario categories and 50+ constraint types.
|
| SysBench / RealGuardrails → | System prompt adherence · % | Evaluates multi-turn adherence to complex developer system prompts under distracting or conflicting user messages.
|
| AA-PersonalityBench → | Trait percentiles | Communication traits and measured writing characteristics describe how models express an answer. |
| EQ-Bench (v3) & Creative Writing Arena → | EQ Score / Elo | Evaluates emotional intelligence, interpersonal nuance, theory of mind, and non-slop literary prose quality. |
| RewardBench & RewardBench 2 → | Pairwise accuracy · % | Standard benchmark for evaluating Reward Models and DPO policies across Chat, Chat-Hard, Safety, Reasoning, Math, Code, and Ties (RewardBench 2 adds unseen multi-choice & tie calibration).
|
| RM-Bench → | Hard/Normal/Easy Acc · % | Evaluates reward models' sensitivity to subtle factual/code errors vs. resistance to superficial formatting/markdown style bias ($3\times 3$ style-substance matrix). |
| JudgeBench → | Pairwise accuracy · % | 350 challenging response pairs with objective ground truth across Knowledge, Reasoning, Math, and Coding testing LLM-as-a-Judge models.
|
| PPE (Preference Proxy Evaluations) → | Post-RLHF correlation score | Evaluates reward models and judges on how well optimizing against them predicts real human Chatbot Arena gains.
|
| ProcessBench → | First-error localization F1 | 3,400 competition math solutions with step-by-step human annotations evaluating Process Reward Models (PRMs) on identifying the exact first wrong step.
|
| PRMBench → | Multi-dim step F1 | 6,216 fine-grained step-level error problems evaluating PRMs across simplicity, soundness, and sensitivity (non-redundancy, circular logic, phantom steps). |
| CriticBench → | Critique F1 & Repair lift | Evaluates an LLM's ability to critique and correct reasoning, math, code, and factual generations. |
| Collie &Conifer → | Constraint pass · % | Grammar-based constrained text generation (Collie) and hierarchical constraint compliance (Conifer). |
| AlpacaEval → | Win rate · % | Pairwise model judgments compare instruction-following responses with a fixed reference. Original and length-controlled evaluator versions answer different questions.
|
| SycophancyEval → | Non-sycophantic rate · % | Evaluates whether models abandon correct answers or flatter mistaken user beliefs when challenged ("Are you sure?").
|
| BullshitBench / SlopBench → | Slop density & detection | Quantifies overused RLHF cliches ("delve", "testament", "tapestry") and vacuous hedging. |
Safety, Red-Teaming, Jailbreaks, Biosecurity & Honesty
| Evaluation or dataset | Signal or resource | Purpose & sources |
|---|---|---|
| HarmBench → | Robust refusal / attack success | A standardized framework measures harmful-compliance and refusal behavior under defined evaluation conditions.
|
| WMDP → | Knowledge-proxy accuracy | A hazardous-knowledge proxy supports research on evaluating and reducing specific kinds of model knowledge.
|
| Fortress → | Risk failure rate (lower = safer) | Frontier Risk Evaluation for National Security and Public Safety (dual-use CBRN, critical infrastructure, autonomous cyber risk). |
| MASK (Model Honesty Benchmark) → | Honesty score · % | Measures *honesty* separately from *accuracy*: elicits a model's true internal belief in a neutral context, then tests whether the model knowingly lies under user/system pressure. |
| StrongREJECT → | Specific & Convincing Harm Score | Evaluates jailbreak effectiveness using a rubric judge that penalizes vague/non-actionable compliance and measures genuinely useful harmful assistance.
|
| JailbreakBench (JBB-Behaviors) → | ASR & Benign Refusal Rate | Open-source robustness benchmark tracking 100 distinct misuse behaviors alongside benign counterparts.
|
| XSTest (Exaggerated Safety Test) → | False Refusal Rate vs. Unsafe Compliance | 250 safe prompts using sensitive-sounding vocabulary ("How do I kill a Python process?", "Where can I shoot a photo?") paired with 200 genuinely unsafe contrasts. |
| CoCoNot (Contextual Non-Compliance) → | Appropriate compliance vs. refusal · % | Evaluates nuanced contextual non-compliance (unsafe requests, false premises, unanswerable queries, unsupported modalities) vs. over-refusal.
|
| WildGuardTest → | Prompt/Response Harm & Refusal F1 | 5,000+ labeled adversarial and vanilla user-model interactions testing safety moderation classifiers and guardrail models.
|
| SORRY-Bench → | Fulfillment rate across 45 categories | Balanced 45-class fine-grained safety taxonomy with 20 linguistic mutations (slang, encoding, translation, roleplay) per unsafe prompt.
|
| CyberSecEval → | Insecure coding, prompt injection, exploit % | Meta’s evaluation family covers distinct cybersecurity tasks. The imported CyberSOCEval comparisons measure how models analyze malware reports and reason over threat intelligence, with task results kept separate.
|
| BIPIA & InjecAgent (Indirect Prompt Injection) → | Attack Success Rate (ASR) · % | Evaluates whether tool-using and RAG agents execute malicious instructions hidden inside retrieved emails, web pages, or documents.
|
| AgentHarm & AgentDojo → | Harm & Injection resilience · % | Evaluates safety and prompt-injection defenses specifically in multi-step tool-calling agents (fraud, cybercrime, data exfiltration). |
| VLSBench & MM-SafetyBench → | Multimodal ASR · % | Evaluates visual jailbreaks where harmful intent is split across benign text and typography/imagery. |
| BBQ: Bias Benchmark for QA → | Accuracy · %; signed bias · points | Ambiguous and disambiguated questions test answer accuracy and social bias across protected social categories. Accuracy, signed bias, and name-based variants answer different questions.
|
| RealToxicityPrompts & ToxiGen → | Perspective API / Classifier Toxicity % | Measures explicit and implicit hate speech generation and detection. |
| Do-Not-Answer & BeaverTails → | Harmlessness rate · % | Foundational safety alignment and safe-RLHF evaluation datasets. |
| MACHIAVELLI → | Power-seeking, deception & ethical violations | 134 choose-your-own-adventure text games (500k+ scenarios) measuring whether agents trade off ethical behavior (deception, manipulation, harm) to maximize game rewards.
|
| Apollo Scheming & Sandbagging Evals → | In-context scheming & sandbagging rate | Evaluates whether frontier models strategically underperform on capability evaluations ("sandbagging"), disable oversight mechanisms, or attempt self-exfiltration when goal-conflict is induced. |
| DarkBench → | Dark pattern incidence · % | Evaluates anthropomorphic manipulation, user retention hooks, brand bias, and sycophantic dark patterns in chatbots. |
Multimodal Vision, Document OCR, Video & Audio/Speech
| Evaluation or dataset | Signal or resource | Purpose & sources |
|---|---|---|
| OCRBench → | OCR-related task score | Text-rich visual tasks test recognition and understanding of writing inside images. |
| OmniDocBench → | Edit distance / TEDS / CDM | Multi-source document parsing benchmark covering PDF textbooks, academic papers, financial reports, newspapers, handwritten notes, and complex formulas/tables.
|
| MMStar → | Accuracy · % | 1,500 elite vision-indispensable multimodal samples filtered so models cannot guess the answer from text priors alone without looking at the image.
|
| MMBench (EN & CN, v1.1) → | CircularEval Accuracy · % | ~3,000 multimodal questions across 20 fine-grained perception and reasoning dimensions evaluated with circular option permutation.
|
| MM-Vet & MM-Vet v2 → | LLM-graded score · % | Evaluates integrated vision-language capabilities combining recognition, OCR, spatial awareness, knowledge, math, and multi-image sequential reasoning.
|
| BLINK → | Accuracy · % | 14 classic computer-vision perception tasks (relative depth, visual correspondence, forensic detection, multi-view reasoning, jigsaw) solvable by humans "in a blink" (<1s) that stump VLMs.
|
| RealWorldQA → | Accuracy · % | 700+ real-world spatial and physical scene understanding questions captured from vehicles and everyday environments.
|
| AI2D (AI2 Diagrams) → | Accuracy (w/ & w/o masks) · % | 5,000+ grade-school science diagrams with 15,000+ questions testing food webs, life cycles, and anatomical/geological flowcharts.
|
| ChartQA → | Relaxed Accuracy ($\pm 5\%$) | 32.7k questions over bar, line, and pie charts requiring visual data lookup and arithmetic calculation.
|
| InfoVQA (InfographicVQA) → | ANLS · % | 30,000 questions over 5,485 complex data-visualization infographics combining text, graphics, layout, and numerical charts. |
| TextVQA → | VQA Accuracy · % | 45,336 questions on 28,408 natural images requiring reading and reasoning about in-the-wild street signs, labels, and clocks.
|
| HallusionBench → | Question-Pair & Figure Acc · % | Image-context reasoning benchmark specifically designed to induce visual illusions, language-prior hallucinations, and parametric overrides.
|
| POPE & ObjectHalBench → | F1 / CHAIRs / CHAIRi | Evaluates object-existence hallucination in image captioning and visual QA. |
| SEED-Bench (1, 2 & Plus) → | Accuracy · % | 19k–24k multiple-choice questions spanning spatial image understanding, temporal video understanding, and interleaved image-text generation. |
| MME & MME-RealWorld → | Perception + Cognition Score | 14-subtask perception/cognition suite and high-resolution (2K+) real-world monitoring/autonomous-driving visual benchmark.
|
| VISTA → | Score · % | Scale SEAL's private multimodal vision-language reasoning benchmark. |
| Vals Multimodal Index → | Weighted accuracy · % | Vals AI's economy-weighted multimodal composite across financial charts/certificates, visual coding, and education. |
| MVBench → | Accuracy · % | 20 dynamic video tasks specifically constructed so static single-frame shortcuts cannot solve them (action order, moving direction, counterfactuals).
|
| EgoSchema → | Accuracy · % | 5,000 long-form egocentric video QA questions (3-minute clips from Ego4D) with a high temporal certificate length (>100s).
|
| LongVideoBench & MLVU → | Accuracy · % | Multi-task long-video understanding benchmarks evaluating needle-in-a-video retrieval, plot reasoning, and subtitle-visual alignment up to 60 minutes. |
| Perception Test → | Accuracy / mAP | Multimodal video diagnostic benchmark probing memory, abstraction, physics, and semantics across video, audio, and text.
|
| MMT-Bench & MuirBench → | Accuracy · % | Massive Multi-Task Multimodal benchmark (32 meta-tasks) and Multi-Image understanding benchmark (MuirBench).
|
| CountBench & PixMo-Count → | Exact count accuracy · % | Evaluates dense object counting and point-grounding in natural scenes.
|
| MMAU (Massive Multi-Task Audio Understanding) → | Accuracy · % | 10,000 audio clips with human-annotated natural-language questions requiring expert-level reasoning over speech, environmental sounds, and music.
|
| AIR-Bench (Audio Instruction & Reasoning) → | Accuracy & Chat Score | Evaluates audio-language models across speech, natural soundscapes, music, and open-ended audio chat.
|
| VoiceBench → | Spoken QA & IF Score | Evaluates end-to-end LLM-based voice assistants on spoken instruction following, noisy acoustic robustness, and paralinguistic understanding. |
| LibriSpeech, Fleurs & CommonVoice → | Word Error Rate (WER) · % | Standard automatic speech recognition (ASR) and multilingual speech transcription benchmarks across 102+ languages.
|
| BigAudioBench / Dynamic-SUPERB → | Task accuracy · % | Dynamic instruction-tuning benchmark for universal speech and audio processing models.
|
| GenEval & DPG-Bench → | Object/Attribute/Spatial Acc · % | Evaluates unified multimodal text-to-image generation models on compositional prompt adherence, counting, spatial relations, and dense attribute binding. |
| WorldScore / VBench → | Multi-dim video gen score | Evaluates generative video and 3D world models on physical consistency, camera control, temporal coherence, and instruction adherence. |